tv [untitled] October 19, 2010 10:30am-11:00am PST
different barriers of this. this is the fourth one of these that i have seen as a director. this is a couple of years. this person was not seriously injured and hopefully this will not happen in the future. >> this is something that we could do to update the performance? >> we will look back into this and we will look at how long ago that this was. >> is there any further discussion? >> this is what we have just had. hopefully this will be very simple as that question. i thought that they were removed
for discussion. >>10.3 -- >> let me read this into the record. acting as the parking authority, with the benefit district. he had a couple of members of the public, this is the one member of the public. >> is he in the room? >> i feel a little bit awkward to be here without the staff people making a report. is it possible to have the official presentation? i am the coordinator of this ticklish group, and i have
appeared before you try to deal with comprehensive parking issues. and this relates to the larger issues i have been dealing with for several decades. you have all these different issues and when mayor newsom took over in 2004, i had a stake holders meeting, and the issue that they were most concerned about was security. we had a number of meetings with the police and homeless outreach, and in 2007 i went to the mayor and i said, this is something that needs more than one person trying to be helpful. and the mayor, there were asking the economic development office
to begin to prepare a community benefit for this area. this has taken a very long time because of the strange nature of this with all of the public property but this has now come together with a group of private property owners supporting all of this. there is the organization with an executive director who will bring coherence to this, to oversee the program like this. this requires of the property owners, and they voted unanimously. this is for the but dissipation in this grudge and that this while we would ask for you to do. >> this proposal essentially --
>> this is the executive director, at the appropriate time, like a positive vote as it relates to the ballot supporting this measure. this is supporting the creation. >> first there is the petition. >> the petition is first and this will create the balance. at that juncture you'll give me the authority. >> and that authority has not been given this morning? >> the authority to proceed with the ballot is what is on the table today. however, until stuck and -- until this is available to be submitted, he will hold back. >> these things have worked out very successfully in many parts of the city. members?
is there any further discussion? >> this is recommending the board of supervisors adopt the police cut sections with the division of the transportation code, enacting various transportation code to enact a misdemeanor offenses related to the taxi services to enforce specified parking regulations and this was moved from the agenda on the request of members of the public. gruber and rathbone. >> thank you, once again. these are important provisions and i am not certain why these on the consent calendar. much of this is positive in terms of prohibitions against the doormen at hotels, taking money from limousine drivers,
and exchange to be taken to the airport. one section particularly concerns me, and it has to do with gratuity. under the code, company agents and employees cannot accept these deaths from the drivers, or any kinds of money except for the payments that are authorized. this would make that a misdemeanor, but this will water down in the sense that you have to prove that the money was given in exchange for a favor. it is very hard to show this. most of this money is not paid for a favor. this is protection money so the driver will not have to wait around for several hours before getting out of the triage. -- out of the garage. this is standard operation that
many of the cab company. and to me, this is pernicious, and this is -- this has to be -- it needs to be dealt with. and it never has. any time that there is a driver with $20 -- given to the dispatcher down because he wants to, but because he feels too -- he feels like he has to, a little bit of self worth goes with this. i do not understand why we are watering down these provisions and i do not understand why those provisions are happening in the first place. >> a good morning. charles rathbone. we agree with the attention -- intention of this legislation.
but as this is written, this would criminalize the service that luxury cabs are using, that bring over 3000 rides into the dispatch system. we do pay a referral fee for almost all of these trips. this is a legitimate business relationship, and it should not be prohibited as this all in the languages that are written. there is an easy fix. and this is adding praise in section 7.36. the dispatch service and the affiliated service. we believe that this would solve this problem. and there is a second concern and this is -- the phrase that exempts referral services, to
provide direct communication between passengers and drivers. these words are perfectly described, and these are technological innovations. unfortunately, we also find them to be against the law on these dispatch services. please remove this phrase. with the legal services. in general, we welcome the technological innovation and we believe that they should be playing by the same rules that we will play by. if we have to have a dispatch licenses, then they should have the same restrictions. thank you. >> and other any members of the board? >> i have a question. chief murphy has left, but in order to prosecute the
misdemeanor, it has to be committed in the presence of a police officer, and that has to have the full police report written on this. i am not certain how this will be dealt with. and i assume that we will not the uniformed officers here. >> can you help us with this question? >> you have this right. >> my gener understanding, i would have to take a look at these particular issues to see if the program have a different scheme or a different basis for the misdemeanor charge. as a general manager, this is the case. >> the past practice or process, when we decriminalized this, along with a couple of other items, we did this to try
to mitigate this rather than getting the san francisco police department to do this rather than dealing with these issues and infractions. >> and this is a fine that can be enforced with personnel, rather than requiring the police officer watched the doorman give a bribe to the limo driver, the police officer is protecting safety. my suggestion is that this is a very strong step in the right direction. we have several concerns that are difficult to address, and what i would suggest is that we are generally in favor of this and the deputy director will work with us to come back to us in a short time. >> and we will put this over to another meeting?
>> this is not a safety measure >> and we will wait till we can get this right. >> i would say that there is a safety element to this, that is not like the safety issue. >> will take this back to you as the staff. >> i hope that this is a simple question. this says that we will spend $68 million for the costs to the brokers, and the systems that we will get $60 million in coverage. we are going to plan out $30 million in coverage. and we could get less than $60 million in coverage and we will spend this on the premium costs and fees? >> and there is the motion. >> further discussion? all in favor?